Editorial – Starmer goes so what will Burnham do when it comes to energy?

If as predicted Andy Burnham takes over from Keir Starmer, Labour’s energy policy is unlikely to be torn up but it could be dragged into a much tougher political shape.

The clean power mission is now wired into Labour’s economic plan, its industrial strategy and its pitch to investors, so a full retreat would look chaotic. The more likely shift is language, personnel and priority: less “net zero as moral mission” and more “cheap power, secure jobs and British industry first”.

The politics around Ed Miliband has suddenly become a big thing.

Miliband is the strongest clean energy voice in Labour’s top team and recent reports have suggested he has been discussed as a possible Chancellor in a Burnham government.

If that happened, it would put the author of Labour’s clean power push at the heart of tax, spending and growth policy.

For supporters, that would protect renewables, grid reform, home insulation, Great British Energy and the clean power by 2030 target.

For critics, it would be an open goal: net zero running the Treasury.

That is why the warning from Unite’s Sharon Graham is important. She leads one of the biggest unions covering the energy sector and she’s not a fan of ‘Red Ed’.

She has reportedly urged Burnham not to appoint Miliband as Chancellor, warning that his approach to net zero risks damaging industrial jobs, skills and national security.

Her argument is not anti-worker rhetoric from the right, it is coming from Britain’s biggest trade union and it goes straight to Labour’s weak spot: whether the transition is creating good jobs fast enough or loading costs onto the very communities Labour needs to win back.

This is the hard bit for Burnham. He cannot simply sound like Reform on net zero but he also cannot sound like nothing has changed. Dealing with Miliband could be a big issue as it has such an effect on what many see as a ‘pain but at present no gain’ policy.

Voters are worried about bills, heavy industry is worried about power prices and unions are worried that clean energy targets can become promises for the future while jobs disappear in the present.

The Tony Blair Institute has been making a similar strategic point from a different direction. It has argued the UK needs an energy reset focused on cheaper power, electrification, energy security and competitiveness rather than making clean power targets the only organising principle.

That does not mean abandoning net zero by 2050. It means trying to make the route to it look less expensive, less ideological and more useful to the economy.

So under Burnham, carbon capture, heat pump subsidies and parts of the Warm Homes programme could face sharper scrutiny.

Do they cut bills? Do they create British jobs? Do they help industry compete? Or do they just look like expensive climate machinery that voters cannot feel in their pockets?

North Sea oil and gas would also become more awkward. Burnham would have to balance Labour’s commitment to end new licences with pressure from unions, industry and energy security voices who want a slower, more managed transition.

The most likely outcome is not a clean break but a political rebrand. Burnham himself has talked about nationalising the water sector and even energy, however he surely can’t be serious as the costs would be astronomical. So is it rhetoric for his left fan base or would he actually try and bring that level of disruption to the sector, let alone the financial markets?

Clean power stays. Net zero gets spoken about less. Cheap electricity, industrial jobs and energy security move to the front of the agenda and most important of all, consumers see their bills falling... that would be the ideal scenario for the so called ‘King of the North’.

And Miliband’s future becomes key to it all, whether Burnham doubles down on Labour’s green machine or starts changing gear before Reform changes it for him.